Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But as for the topic at hand, my original answer to the OP still stands. Any other Christ besides the one we have known from the beginning is not Christ but an imposter, but I leave their judgment for God who is far more merciful than I could ever hope to be.
It's quite amusing how you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.
It's quite amusing how you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.
Lion King, please see my reply to you in post #95. Thanks.
we've derailed the thread long enough. Let's move on.
I think this really needs to be said:
Belief in the Deity of Christ is not the chief criterion that makes or breaks orthodoxy.
Simply believing that Jesus is divine isn't the issue--in fact for much of the Church's ancient history most of the heresies it dealt with were from those who actually affirmed that Jesus was divine, God even.
If being able to say, "Jesus Christ is God" is the chief theological issue, then even the Arians were orthodox when they taught that there was the supreme God (the Father) and a junior God (the Son). But it was precisely over the Arian error that the bishops at Nicea put forward their confession of faith, that the Son is the same God with the Father, not a separate God.-snip-
First of all, how do you define "separation"? It appears you are questioning or at least circumscribing the omnipresence of the God of the Bible. That sounds like a contradiction to me.
As far as the Orthodox opinion goes, the Church has not chosen to legislate on this particular topic as a matter of dogma in the way that the RCC or some Protestant churches do.
In my opinion, the Bible makes clear that God IS omnipresent. There is no place or existence that He is not present in or which does not receive its existence through Him. The pious opinion of the EOC that I spoke about tends to bring this into account.
I don't know. God is an allconsuming fire, but fire came out of Lucifer and destroyed him. I do believe He's in the other part though in some way, Sadhu Sundhar Singh saw it. But the lake of fire is to torment satan, I don't think He's there, since He hates him.I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?
I don't know. God is an allconsuming fire, but fire came out of Lucifer and destroyed him. I do believe He's in the other part though in some way, Sadhu Sundhar Singh saw it. But the lake of fire is to torment satan, I don't think He's there, since He hates him.
I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?
I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?
Not only that, but I believe that it is an error to take the apocalyptic wording of the imagery in Revelation as absolute dogma. The Lake of Fire is just as much an image as is the beast with seven heads or the lamb that speaks as a dragon. There is a truth to the Lake of Fire, a very serious truth, but I believe that it is a mistake to rely heavily on that specific wording, just as it would be a mistake to expect to see a real talking lamb with a dragon's voice. Thus I have no problem affirming that God is omnipresent and that there is no escaping him, while still affirming that eternity for those who hate Christ will be agonizing.
I doubt He's there in any capacity. Could He change that? I suppose so, if He didn't contradict Himself.
They don't escape. They are sent there from His presence. That's the point. He's not there to somehow welcome them or alter them or something.
They don't escape. They are sent there from His presence. That's the point. He's not there to somehow welcome them or alter them or something.
Revelation 14:9-11
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
First of all, how do you define "separation"? It appears you are questioning or at least circumscribing the omnipresence of the God of the Bible. That sounds like a contradiction to me.
As far as the Orthodox opinion goes, the Church has not chosen to legislate on this particular topic as a matter of dogma in the way that the RCC or some Protestant churches do.
In my opinion, the Bible makes clear that God IS omnipresent. There is no place or existence that He is not present in or which does not receive its existence through Him. The pious opinion of the EOC that I spoke about tends to bring this into account.
... you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?